finf a
The question remains why Martin would even run away. What appears to be the catalyst is Martin’s seeing Zimmerman talking on the phone. The attack apparently happened because Zimmerman reached for his phone. There is no reason to think Zimmerman was acting “weird” since Trayvon likely couldn’t even see Zimmerman clearly until he approached the vehicle, and all Zimmerman was doing at that point was talking to the dispatcher.
So he was trying to tell the PD where he saw TM last and not trying to tell them where to meet GZ?
I mean why would it matter that the one side of the block is closer to where TM was seen last if GZ was trying to get an address for where he could meet the cops?
I don’t get that.
I noticed that you left out some relevant parts.
Idk if I should re-post those parts or not. I assume that they have been read. You quoted and replied to stuff all around the relevant sentences.
GZ provides a bullshit reason for getting out of his vehicle–to look for a street sign where there is no intersection, and when he is across the block where he ostensibly went to get an address, he does not provide the address, he instead returns to giving directions to his vehicle.
Since GZ was giving directions to his truck before he got out of it and after he crossed the block, there’s evidence to support the idea that GZ was contemplating meeting the PD at his truck–hence the reason why he gave directions to his truck twice.
There’s zero evidence in the NEN call to support his assertion that he thought to look for a street sign where there was no intersection and then decided to go across the block to to get an address for where he saw TM last (?) nor to give the PD the address he found once he crossed the block.
That part does not make sense and it’s not supported by the evidence at hand. Imho, that excludes it from the category of being credible. ymmv
That’s all based on GZ’s account, the veracity of which is questionable.
Imho, the possible series of possible events are not restricted to what GZ says happened.
there’s nothing particularly glaring about it. He went with the directions he worked out with the dispatcher. It doesn’t require an explanation. There’s nothing of substance in his video narrative that contradicts his phone call or the other physical evidence. That’s what the court has to work with.
Again, there is no doubt he exited the truck to follow Martin. This isn’t going to be challenged in court. Are you saying it’s impossible to look for a street sign in the process? What point would the prosecution try to make in this line of questioning?
Their point will be simple. Zimmerman’s stated reason for exiting his car and searching the area is a lie made to cover up the fact that he deliberately hunted for the boy and then confronted him when he found him.
The lie not only further reduces his credibility, but it also is evidence of guilty consciousness.
The point will be shot down immediately.
prosecutor question: in the video you said you got out of the truck to look for a sign. Is this correct
answer: yes. when I saw Martin take off I wanted to keep him in sight and give good directions to where he was running.
Prosecutor question: in the phone call you can be heard exiting the truck and was later asked if you were folllowing Martin for which you replied yes. Is that correct
answer: yes.
Where is the lie? The video gives additional narrative.
But that’s not what he said the night of the shooting. From a transcript of the taped interview at SPD:
The lie is that Zimmerman was never trying to look for a street sign. The evidence of that is the fact he never told the dispatcher that this what he was doing, and he never told the dispatcher an address that corresponded to any house on RVC. It’s bullshit, that’s all it is.
Wow, I just read a transcript from that 2/26 interview posted at justice quest. I didn’t realize how much Zimmerman contradicted himself in that interview until I came across him saying this
This is his story when he was first asked to tell his version of events. Notice how he says nothing at all about looking for a street sign or an address? He admits that his goal was look for Martin, not for an address to direct the cops. That line of bullshit didn’t work it’s way into his narrative until the second time he told it.
No. That’s not even a close guess.
Sorry if I haven’t been clear enough.
If you actually wanted to see a street sign, would you look at an intersection for a street sign or would you look where there is not an intersection? Just you personally. What would be your preference between those two choices? Why is that?
After this we can go on to the second part where there’s zero indication in the NEN call that GZ sought an address from the east side of the block. There is evidence that at that the points in time when GZ was in his vehicle through when he crossed the block that GZ was considering something other than getting an address from the east side of the block–namely meeting the police at his vehicle.
Maybe it’ll come to you later.
But it’s in his written narrative and in his re-enactment if that’s what you’re asking. It may be in more places, but those are the only two I have looked at.
We know he was looking for Martin. This is not in dispute. At all. Not even a little. Adding to the narrative that he looked for a street sign and then later for an address does not change this nor does it make it a lie.
What don’t you understand about this? There is nothing a prosecutor can make of this added detail. He may have also been thinking about picking up some mayo at the store when he heads back out. The additional information changes nothing. the additional information has no bearing on the assault and self defense.
he was trying to give directions to the police at the same time he was looking for Martin. What is so difficult to understand about this? seriously?
What manner of questions do you think the prosecution can ask that can’t be explained? Was he looking for a street name? Clearly he didn’t know the name of the street. He doesn’t see a sign and continues on his way. You’re arguing over a detail that consists of panning the street while he runs/jogs towards the back of the houses.
It does when these lies are used to hide and downplay Zimmerman’s real intent that night. There is a big difference between him searching in the dark for an address to give the cops and searching in the dark for a kid who is “up to no good”.
GZ Said:
Why would he walk back through to his street (East) if he were following Martin? Martin went South. You are up in arms because he didn’t say walked back through to my street to get an address? I don’t think that is even worth mentioning, much less wow-worthy.
His real intent as stated by his actions and phone call was to get the police to investigate Martin. He admits to the dispatcher he was following Martin. He talks about his crappy flashlight. There is nothing to downplay about the idea that he is looking for Martin. It’s the entire purpose of his call to the police.
Zimmerman begs to differ.
He agreed not to follow him after asked by the dispatcher. that is not the same as looking for him. there is no indication he ever left the sidewalk until Martin assaulted him. As it stands now, he did exactly what he should have done.
The same cannot be said of Martin.
I have never heard a satisfactory answer to this question:
If Zimmerman’s intention was to pursue Martin, he would have moved South down the “T”. But his keys (with mini-flashlight on) were found a few feet from the top of the “T”. Martin’s body was found about 40 feet from the top of the “T”.
If Zimmerman had headed south he would have passed through and well past both of these points during the remainder of his phone call alone.
If Zimmerman had actually continued to follow Martin, then why was the debris field found in places that Zimmerman surely would have passed?
So Zimmerman downplayed parts he thought may be seen unfavorably? OK. And I’m sure that he played up parts he thought may be seen favorably. So what? That’s what most people would do, whether they were innocent or guilty.
He walked to the “T” and looked south to see where the kid had gone. He didn’t see him, and then he walked east to look for a house address. They aren’t mutually exclusive. This is kind of like saying Zimmerman couldn’t have been chewing gum because he was walking at the time. He did both. He may have downplayed one and played up the other, but… so what?
Like many of the “contradictions” people point out, this whole thing is semantics. And phrases like “following him” and “he ran” have multiple meanings and can be used in different contexts. Human beings generally speak with very little precision. Words, language, and communication is a very sloppy, sloppy business.
He was following him in the sense that he was headed to the last place he saw him. He did notmean that his intention was to overtake him, or even to tail him as he traveled south.
And as I’ve mentioned before, if he had gone south, he would have been well past the debris field by the end of the conversation alone.